Trial reportClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic IOLs in Patients with Uveitis - A Randomised Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Report: Early bilateral capsular contraction syndrome associated with Epstein-Barr virus-positive uveitis after cataract surgery.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Optimizing Perioperative Management Strategies in Uveitic Cataract Surgery: A Survey of Expert Practices.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Comparative biocompatibility of hydrophilic vs. hydrophobic intraocular lenses following phacoemulsification in patients with uveitis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Intraocular Pressure Spikes Following Cataract Extraction: Hydrophobic vs Hydrophilic Acrylic Lenses.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare inflammatory response, visual acuity, and complications of two intraocular lenses (IOLs) in patients with and without uveitis. Setting: Tertiary referral centre at Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Mölndal, Sweden. Design: Prospective randomised controlled trial. Patients and Methods: Patients with and without uveitis eligible for cataract surgery were randomised to receive a hydrophobic or a hydrophilic square-edged intraocular lens (IOL). Patients undergoing bilateral surgery received a hydrophobic IOL in one eye and a hydrophilic in the other. Visual acuity, flare, and central foveal thickness were used as outcome measures. Results: In total, 34 (61%) patients (52 eyes) with uveitis and 22 (39%) non-uveitic patients (38 eyes) were included in the study. Comparable corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was seen, regardless of IOL material. Flare, six months postoperatively, for those undergoing bilateral surgery, showed no significant difference between eyes receiving a hydrophilic IOL or a hydrophobic IOL; mean difference was -3.2 (SD ± 20.7) ph/ms between eyes with uveitis (p = 0.53) and -0.6 SD ± 7.5 ph/ms between eyes without uveitis (p = 0.77). No significant difference in cystoid macular edema (CME) was seen for uveitic patients receiving a hydrophobic IOL (n = 2; 8.0%) and those receiving a hydrophilic IOL (n = 6; 22.2%; p = 0.25). Conclusion: No significant differences in postoperative inflammatory reaction or rate of CME were seen regardless of using a hydrophobic or a hydrophilic IOL. In general, an improvement in CDVA was seen after cataract surgery with both types of IOLs. Thus, the present study did not support either of the IOL materials as advantageous in patients with uveitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.